Are folks getting along with 'arch' ok? Are you able to download as needed? How does it compare to CVS? Is there a different SCM you would like to see used?
thanks
ron
It scares the crap out of me. I'm now using 3 different systems (CVS, svn, arch) which is painful. Not only do I need to remember three sets of commands, but I have to maintain the three installations.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Greg
On May 25, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Ronald G. Minnich wrote:
Are folks getting along with 'arch' ok? Are you able to download as needed? How does it compare to CVS? Is there a different SCM you would like to see used?
thanks
ron
LinuxBIOS mailing list LinuxBIOS@openbios.org http://www.openbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
Are folks getting along with 'arch' ok? Are you able to download as needed? How does it compare to CVS? Is there a different SCM you would like to see used?
This seems like a lead in... *grin* Are you getting along with arch? I've yet to actually commit anything to linuxbios since I just reciently fixed up my key.
Reciently though on some projects here at Bitworks we have had a few CVS gotcha's cause some pain. So I've been looking for a replacement and playing with various scm a bit. I've messed with arch,svn,bazzar-ng, and darcs. With web page reads of the myriad of other scms that are popping up.
IMHO arch is just too unwieldly. I can't imagine trying to explain it to the other developers here at Bitworks. baz might make this easier but that's not one I've looked at that. Perhpas I'll mess with baz for trying a commit of the 440bx stuff.
I'm not advocating (yet) but darcs is currently leading the pack on replacing CVS here at Bitworks. A nifty additional benefit is that darcs can now (mostly) work with kernel git trees.
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 11:04 -0500, Richard Smith wrote:
I'm not advocating (yet) but darcs is currently leading the pack on replacing CVS here at Bitworks. A nifty additional benefit is that darcs can now (mostly) work with kernel git trees.
Is it the Haskell one ?
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 09:33 -0600, Greg Watson wrote:
It scares the crap out of me. I'm now using 3 different systems (CVS, svn, arch) which is painful. Not only do I need to remember three sets of commands, but I have to maintain the three installations.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Does your PDT try to cope with this? An integrate enviroment for those revision control systems?
On May 25, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Li-Ta Lo wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 09:33 -0600, Greg Watson wrote:
It scares the crap out of me. I'm now using 3 different systems (CVS, svn, arch) which is painful. Not only do I need to remember three sets of commands, but I have to maintain the three installations.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Does your PDT try to cope with this? An integrate enviroment for those revision control systems?
As far as I know there's only CVS and subversion support for Eclipse.
Greg
"Ronald G. Minnich" rminnich@lanl.gov writes:
Are folks getting along with 'arch' ok?
So far so good.
I should be finish the merge I started long ago in the next week or which will make a very good test... After that it should be much easier to keep in sync.
Are you able to download as needed?
No problem yet...
How does it compare to CVS?
It is distributed and has real branches how can that be bad :)
Is there a different SCM you would like to see used?
We should probably keep an eye on git as whatever is the long term winner with revision control is likely to come out that camp. If nothing else we should begin to see interoperability between version control systems. But that is after the dust has settled.
Eric
On 02 Jun 2005 23:18:03 -0600, Eric W. Biederman ebiederman@lnxi.com wrote:
I should be finish the merge I started long ago in the next week or which will make a very good test... After that it should be much easier to keep in sync.
Intel E7520 support code?
YH
-
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Greg Watson -
Li-Ta Lo -
Richard Smith -
Ronald G. Minnich -
yhlu